The Improbability of God

[SirJosephPorter]

Sorry to interject, but.

Saw "Water" on CBC's late move last night. Set in 1938 India, it's a commentary on the misery of widows trapped by custom and religion.

Really, that misery was little different from that imposed by today's Islam or not-so-long-ago's Christianity! Religion, must give the gods pains in the butt!

You are wrong, Spade, the misery inflicted on women by Hinduism is by far the worst of the three, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Hinduism treats women worse than Islam or Christianity do.

So far I have been exposing the ugly underside of Christianity and Islam (and one religious fanatic from each religion has been helping me). However, I am an equal opportunity basher, so let us not forget Hinduism. A couple of years ago we visited India, so I read extensively about India before we visited there. Plus, I have always been fascinated by the ancient Hindu civilization.

I didn’t see that movie, but you probably saw child brides and child widows (a ten year old girl is married off to an eleven year old boy, if the boy dies by plague or by anything else, the little girl is a widow for life). That was a very ugly part of Indian civilization. The child widow would have to cover her body with one cloth all the time. Her hair was cut, leaving her completely bald. She had to remain bald all her life, to tell the world the fact that she is a widow. She was not allowed to wear normal clothes, jewellery etc. She had to eat the blandest of foods; she was not allowed to eat any spicy foods, pickles etc. (spicy food is the very backbone of Indian cuisine). Remarriage was, of course, out of the question.

Now, believe it or not, but this represented a betterment of women’s condition. Before this period, the custom of suttee was quite prevalent. If the eleven year old boy dies, the ten year old girl would be forcibly put on the burning pyre of the boy (Hindus practice cremation, not burial). Of course she would not go willingly, but had to be dragged kicking and screaming and thrown into the fire.

The British put a stop to that. When the Hindus were forced to let the widows live, they made their life as miserable and as difficult as possible.

So, horrible as Islam and Christianity are from woman’s point of view, Hinduism is even worse.

I think the attitudes of the three religions towards women can be succinctly describes as follows.

In Christianity, husband is the master, wife is the servant.

In Islam, husband is the master and wife is the slave.

In Hinduism, husband is the God and wife is his worshipper.

 

[Cliffy]

No, SJP, it's stoning not divorce.
Deuteronomy 22.22
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."

And today the only dire consequence is STDs, pregnancy or losing your house.

 

[Spade]

And today the only dire consequence is STDs, pregnancy or losing your house.

Holy, Cripes, not losing your house! Say it ain't so, Joe!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP, this subject seems very dear to you, are you a man playing the role of a woman in a "marriage" where your role is the one of a wife but you still get to make some sort of decisions?

Here you have terminated serious discussion and resorted to personal insults (as I expected you eventually would, a religious extremist normally does that. But you held out longer than I expected.).

Anyway, you helped me make my case, so thank you for that. This discussion is over.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, SJP, it's stoning not divorce.
Deuteronomy 22.22
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."

Spade, if the wife committed fornication, she would be stoned to death, but the man will be permitted to divorce her. I assume once she is dead, the question wouldn't arise.

Anyway, i don't think stoning is recommended in the New Testament, so i assume in Biblical times, a divorce would be permissible in the case of fornication.

 

[MHz]

Again, you have made my case for me. Let me quote a couple of sentences.

you should be using husband and wife being that is who Adam was given authority over.

I agree that Adam is given the authority over Eve, that Adam is the master, Eve is the servant.

With just those two involved yes, Adam gets to break-trail which makes Eve's task of getting from point 'A' to point 'B' easier. You will also notice that Adam was given instructions from God so Adam is not a Master he is a servant.

I'm pretty sure it is common knowledge that any man attempting to control a woman who is not his wife will attract a lot of attention

I see. So any man who is controlling his wife is presumably a commonplace occurrence, that is how it should be, that is ordained by God. A man has the God given right to control his wife. That clearly implies that man is superior to woman, that man is the master, woman is the servant.

Again, I agree (that Bible says so).

He is also instructed to lay down his life in her defense if need be, who has control over whom?

today most wives would kick his ass to the curb and then divorce him and marry another, more stable, man.

Really? Why? Doesn’t’ your God say that man has the absolute control over his wife? Then why would the wife have the right to divorce her husband? Anyway, according to your Holy Book (Bible), the only ground for divorce is fornication, or adultery. Laziness, failure to get a job are not grounds for divorce, according to the Bible. So if the woman would behave in the manner you describe, she would be behaving in a most unbiblical manner, and bring the wrath of your God upon herself.

Anyway, so thank you for making my case for me. It has been my experience, give the religious fanatic, religious extremists enough rope, he invariably hangs himself.

She is going to find a lover and commit adultery and get a divorce and then live with a man, not necessarily the one that helped her get out of a terrible marriage. Or the woman's father, and brothers, etc are going to 'talk' withe the lazy SOB who might just disappear leaving behind a widow who is quite free to remarry if she can attract a real man.
Adultery is a sin these days, it does not keep you out of Heaven nor does it require any punishment from the 'Church'. They would probably be quite pleased that the lazy SOB was expelled from her bed and home and life. He wouldn't qualify as a very good member in Church anyways.

Nice to see your handler keeps you on a short leash.

 

[MHz]

Here you have terminated serious discussion and resorted to personal insults (as I expected you eventually would, a religious extremist normally does that. But you held out longer than I expected.).

Anyway, you helped me make my case, so thank you for that. This discussion is over.

What insult, it was an inquiry into your personal situation to see if it had some meaning in your many posts on this one specific subject. It was far removed from being serious anyway, all you were doing was attempting to discredit the way the Bible suggested a marriage should run. What makes you think God wasn't referencing who would speak for the family when speaking to other families. More is usually accomplished by two people talking than 4 or more (wives and kids) when the wives and kids have already made their views on the subject long before the husband says anything to anybody outside the family.

If this means you are done with your subject then I will submit that in itself as proof that there is a God who is even on the job these days.

 

[eanassir]

Yes, it's eminently reasonable, if you actually understand anything about it, but you keep insisting on extreme positions, which is both the false dichotomy fallacy and the fallacy of the excluded middle. Reality is in between.

I know what they say about this subject, those who believe in the evolution and natural selection; but I should declare that this is not reasonable and not logical; and that such people are in extreme error.​

I say also that this is only some claims supported by false evidences and there has been much propaganda about it by many organizations and parties for various purposes; just like how they are making much propaganda about the drunkard atheist ​

No doubt you've observed that animals and plants are all individuals, that members of a species are not identical? That's the normal genetic variation that natural selection operates on.

No, this is not the natural selection, but it is God's creation and His wonders in the heavens and the earth.

This creation is either a gradual process like spreading a large number of people with different colors and other physical manifestations, or an immediate action of creation: when He - be glorified - creates a male and a female of the species and let them reproduce.

God – be glorified – said in the Quran 45: 4​

وَفِي خَلْقِكُمْ وَمَا يَبُثُّ مِن دَابَّةٍ آيَاتٌ لِّقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ​

The explanation:
(And in your creation, and [in] what animals He has scattered [on the planets including the earth],
there are indicative signs for a people having sure faith [therein.] )​

man-after-death.t35.com​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Does the fact that you would have to agree have anything to do with that reluctance?

No, it's because the biblical description of how to lend and borrow money has nothing to do with whether god exists or not.

 

[petros]

First of all the bibles starts out with GODS (plural) Elohim is the plural of the god EL (Saturn). Then came Yahweh which is another god all together. To top it all off you have Isis and Ra which is the "trinity" and makes up the name IS-RA-EL. The goddess was swept under the rug by the paternal politicians of Rome.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I know what they say about this subject, those who believe in the evolution and natural selection; but I should declare that this is not reasonable and not logical; and that such people are in extreme error.​

Yes, I'll concede you may know what they say about this subject, but obviously you don't understand it or you'd see that it's perfectly reasonable and logical, you can't make it otherwise simply by declaring it so. All you do is produce arguments from the authority of a 1400-year old book. That's what is not reasonable and not logical. You observe a highly complex and apparently improbable web of life on the planet, and to explain it you assume the existence of a creator, who by the same logic must be even more complex and improbable, but for some reason that doesn't need explanation. That's worse than no explanation at all, it just denies that an explanation is necessary, or even possible.

 

[MHz]

First of all the bibles starts out with GODS (plural) Elohim is the plural of the god EL (Saturn). Then came Yahweh which is another god all together. To top it all off you have Isis and Ra which is the "trinity" and makes up the name IS-RA-EL. The goddess was swept under the rug by the paternal politicians of Rome.

That isn't exactly right although I admit that is the most used definition. 2d is singular

1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
a) god, goddess
b) godlike one
c) works or special possessions of God
d) the (true) God
e) God

In Ge:1:26 God is talking to the Holy Spirit, the same one mentioned in vs:2

 

[petros]

Nope sorry. Elohim is plural for gods in Hebrew.

 

[petros]

The gods also hint at there being a previous brand of human on the earth. The gods tell A&E to REPLENISH the earth. You can only replenish what once was.

 

[MHz]

The gods also hint at there being a previous brand of human on the earth. The gods tell A&E to REPLENISH the earth. You can only replenish what once was.

Nope it means to fill.
1) to fill, be full
a) (Qal)
1) to be full
a) fulness, abundance (participle)
b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended
2) to consecrate, fill the hand
b) (Niphal)
1) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied
2) to be accomplished, be ended
c) (Piel)
1) to fill
2) to satisfy
3) to fulfil, accomplish, complete
4) to confirm
d) (Pual) to be filled
e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against


If it was a repeat then it would be to re-multiply and to re-subdue

 

[SirJosephPorter]

First of all the bibles starts out with GODS (plural) Elohim is the plural of the god EL (Saturn). Then came Yahweh which is another god all together. To top it all off you have Isis and Ra which is the "trinity" and makes up the name IS-RA-EL. The goddess was swept under the rug by the paternal politicians of Rome.

Petros, I remember we had this discussion on canada.com forum. At that time I mentioned that one of the theories is that Yahweh is same Yahweh mentioned in the Vedas, it is the Hindu God for fire (Agni).

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz6a.htm

 

[petros]

SirJP It is also all probability that Abraham's originates from Brahma and the age of Taurus.

 

[petros]

cough...

replenish



• verb 1 fill up again. 2 restore (a stock or supply) to a former level or condition.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] replenisher [SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE] replenishment [SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE]. [SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] Old French replenir, from plenir ‘fill’.

 

[MHz]

That should be enough to push a few through the gates of hell.

De:8:19:
And it shall be,
if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God,
and walk after other gods,
and serve them,
and worship them,
I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJP It is also all probability that Abraham's originates from Brahma and the age of Taurus.

It most certainly is. Abraham comes from Brahma (A Brahma), the first God of Hindu Trinity, Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh (the similarity in the names is too much to be a coincidence). Also Jesus very likely comes from Vishnu, the second God of Hindu Trinity.